DOCSLIB.ORG

Template Classes and Genericity

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Template Classes and Genericity This is a repository copy of The theory of classification part 13: template classes and genericity. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/79267/ Version: Published Version Article: Simons, A.J.H. (2004) The theory of classification part 13: template classes and genericity. Journal of Object Technology, 3 (7). 15 - 25. ISSN 1660-1769 Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ JOURNAL OF OBJECT TECHNOLOGY Online at http://www.jot.fm. Published by ETH Zurich, Chair of Software Engineering ©JOT, 2004 Vol. 3, No. 7, July-August 2004 The Theory of Classification Part 13: Template Classes and Genericity Anthony J H Simons, Department of Computer Science, University of Sheffield, U.K. 1 INTRODUCTION This is the thirteenth article in a regular series on object-oriented type theory for non- specialists. Previous articles have gradually built up models of objects [1], types [2] and classes [3] in the λ-calculus. Inheritance has been shown to extend both type schemes [4] and implementations [5]. The most recent article [6] presented a model of a simple class hierarchy, with a root Object class, and various subclasses modelling geometric concepts, including a Cartesian Point, an abstract Shape class and a concrete Rectangle class. The aim was to demonstrate how natural intuitions about generalisation and specialisation could be expressed in the theoretical model, both at the type and implementation levels. Methods were written for abstract classes which also applied in a type-correct way to all classes beneath them in the class hierarchy, such as the origin method for Shapes [6]. However, abstract classes are not the only way in which generality can be expressed. Some object-oriented languages allow the introduction of type parameters, standing in place of actual types. These are known as templates in C++, or generic parameters in Ada or Eiffel1. The idea is that algorithms may be written without knowing full type information about all the elements involved. The actual types are supplied later, in a process known as instantiating the type parameters. In this article, we explore the consequences of adding generic classes to the Theory of Classification. Firstly, we look at some historical notions of polymorphism and type parameters. Secondly, we examine how to incorporate these into the type-level of the theory. Finally, we look at how introducing or instantiating type parameters can be combined with the process of deriving subclasses by inheritance. 1 At the time of writing, several proposals exist for adding generic types to Java. One is actively being pursued for inclusion in the next revision of the language. Cite this column as follows: Anthony J.H. Simons: “The Theory of Classification – Part 13: Template Classes and Genericity”, in Journal of Object Technology, vol. 3, no. 7, July-August 2004, pp. 15-25. http://www.jot.fm/issues/issue_2004_07/column2 THE THEORY OF CLASSIFICATION – PART 13: TEMPLATE CLASSES AND GENERICITY 2 TYPE ABSTRACTION AND POLYMORPHISM It is tempting to think that the object-oriented family of languages was the first to generalise the notion of type. This is incorrect, although it is fair to say that the object- oriented family is the only group of languages to suppose that systematic sets of relationships exist between all the types (chiefly through the type hierarchy induced by the subtype [2] or subclass [4] relationships). The term used to describe generalisation over types is polymorphism, coming from the Greek poly (many) and morphe (form). The earliest strongly-typed programming languages were monomorphic, that is, variables were given a single type and could only be bound to values of this type. By contrast, a polymorphic language is one in which type constraints are systematically generalised and variables may be bound to values of more than one type. This opens the way to generic styles of programming, in which generic algorithms accept arguments of many different types. As long ago as the mid-1960s, Strachey and others [7, 8, 9] identified families of types that were sufficiently similar in structure that one could write polymorphic functions acting over them. These were typically the container types, such as List and Stack, for which functions like cons, append, push and pop could be written irrespective of the type of element they contained. Tennent [10] first proposed the use of type parameters to abstract over the unknown parts of these types, giving rise to the declaration style: Stack[T] representing a Stack of any element type T. So, it was possible to write a polymorphic push function that acted upon many different types of Stack, by giving it the parameterised type signature: push (elem : T, stk : Stack[T]) : Stack[T] Elsewhere, Strachey noted a tendency in programming languages to provide polymorphic functions in another way, simply by adding extra overloaded definitions to existing function names. The operator + might be used in one place to add Integers and Reals, but then also in another place to concatenate Strings and append Lists. Strachey therefore distinguished between: • parametric polymorphism – provided by parameterised functions acting in a systematic way over a variety of types; and • ad hoc polymorphism – provided by defining extra meanings for existing function names in an undisciplined way. Today, these two forms of polymorphism are respectively known as genericity (or templates) and overloading. Strachey rejected ad hoc polymorphism on the grounds that it was not amenable to formal analysis. No semantic correspondence need exist between the different definitions overloaded on a single function name, for example: x + y == y + x is true if x, y : Integer, but false if x, y : String. On the other hand, systematic parametric polymorphic mechanisms later entered into the designs of functional programming languages, such as ML [11]. In ML, sophisticated type inference is used at runtime to propagate actual type information into type parameters. Ada was the first 16 JOURNAL OF OBJECT TECHNOLOGY VOL. 3, NO. 7 TYPE ABSTRACTION AND POLYMORPHISM modular language to introduce generic packages, which had to be instantiated explicitly before use [12], generating a separate compiled image for each instantiation. However, parametric polymorphism existed even before these languages used it systematically. For example, in Pascal, the declaration: myArray : ARRAY 1..10 OF Integer; uses the ARRAY OF… special type constructor to build arrays. Such a type constructor can be readily explained as a Tennent-style parameterised polymorphic type: Array[SubrangeType, ElementType] in which the SubrangeType and ElementType are type parameters. Likewise, Pascal’s SET OF… constructor can be considered a polymorphic type. Today, parametric polymorphism exists in all the strongly-typed functional languages, including ML, Hope, Miranda, Clean and Haskell. It is present in many object-oriented languages, such as Ada-95, Eiffel and C++, which have explicit parametric typing mechanisms. 3 A FORMAL MODEL OF POLYMORPHISM Girard [13] and Reynolds [14] are independently credited with having provided the first formal model of polymorphism. They extended the simply-typed λ-calculus to include arguments standing for types, as well as for values. This is the (second-order) polymorphic typed λ-calculus, which we first introduced in the earlier article [3]. The differences between the simply-typed and polymorphic λ-calculus are here explained in more detail. In the simply-typed λ-calculus, one can write functions whose arguments accept values that have types. For example, a function for constructing a coordinate object can be written2: makeIntegerCoord : Integer → Integer → IntegerCoord = λ(a : Integer).λ(b : Integer).{x a a, y a b} This function accepts two arguments a and b, both values of the Integer type, and returns a record, whose x and y fields map to these Integer values. So, for example, we can create an IntegerCoord object at the location (2, 3) by constructing it: makeIntegerCoord(2)(3) - ie apply to value 2, then apply to value 3 ⇒ {x a 2, y a 3} The type of the result is a record type, called IntegerCoord in the type signature of the function above. Technically, we should have defined this record type, before using it in the function’s type signature, in the style: IntegerCoord = {x : Integer, y : Integer} 2 This style is slightly different from the previous article [6]. Here, we introduce each argument separately. Previously, we introduced the pair of Integers as a single argument. VOL. 3, NO. 7 JOURNAL OF OBJECT TECHNOLOGY 17 THE THEORY OF CLASSIFICATION – PART 13: TEMPLATE CLASSES AND GENERICITY Let us assume now that we want to generalise coordinates so that we can construct real- valued coordinates as well as integral-valued coordinates. Intuitively, we want to abstract over the type of the fields, and replace the hard-wired Integer type by a type parameter. The definition of Coord must therefore be turned into a type constructor function: Coord = λτ.{x : τ, y : τ} which accepts one type parameter, τ.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • J1939 Data Mapping Explained
    J1939 Data Mapping Explained Part No. BW2031 Revision: 1.05 May 18, 2018 Pyramid Solutions, Inc. 30200 Telegraph Road, Suite 440 Bingham Farms, MI 48025 www.pyramidsolutions.com | P: 248.549.1200 | F: 248.549.1400 © Pyramid Solutions 1 PUB-BW4031-001 Table of Contents Overview ......................................................................................................................... 2 J1939 Message Terminology ............................................................................................ 2 J1939 PGN Message Definitions ....................................................................................... 3 PGN and Parameter Documentation Examples ........................................................................ 3 J1939 Specification Example ........................................................................................................ 3 Parameter Table Example ............................................................................................................ 5 Determining the BridgeWay Data Table Layout ................................................................ 6 Data Table Layout for Modbus RTU and Modbus TCP (Big Endian) ........................................... 6 Data Table Layout for EtherNet/IP (Little Endian) .................................................................... 7 Configuring the BridgeWay I/O Mapping ......................................................................... 8 Configuration Attributes ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • No-Longer-Foreign: Teaching an ML Compiler to Speak C “Natively”
    Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 59 No. 1 (2001) URL: http://www.elsevier.nl/locate/entcs/volume59.html 16 pages No-Longer-Foreign: Teaching an ML compiler to speak C “natively” Matthias Blume 1 Lucent Technologies, Bell Laboratories Abstract We present a new foreign-function interface for SML/NJ. It is based on the idea of data- level interoperability—the ability of ML programs to inspect as well as manipulate C data structures directly. The core component of this work is an encoding of the almost 2 complete C type sys- tem in ML types. The encoding makes extensive use of a “folklore” typing trick, taking advantage of ML’s polymorphism, its type constructors, its abstraction mechanisms, and even functors. A small low-level component which deals with C struct and union declarations as well as program linkage is hidden from the programmer’s eye by a simple program-generator tool that translates C declarations to corresponding ML glue code. 1 An example Suppose you are an ML programmer who wants to link a program with some C rou- tines. The following example (designed to demonstrate data-level interoperability rather than motivate the need for FFIs in the first place) there are two C functions: input reads a list of records from a file and findmin returns the record with the smallest i in a given list. The C library comes with a header file ixdb.h that describes this interface: typedef struct record *list; struct record { int i; double x; list next; }; extern list input (char *); extern list findmin (list); Our ml-nlffigen tool translates ixdb.h into an ML interface that corre- sponds nearly perfectly to the original C interface.
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Software Engineering with C++ Templates Lecture 4: Separate Compilation and Templates III
    Advanced Software Engineering with C++ Templates Lecture 4: Separate Compilation and Templates III Thomas Gschwind <thgatzurichdotibmdotcom> Agenda . Separate Compilation • Introduction (C++ versus Java) • Variables • Routines (Functions & Operators) • Types (Structures, Classes) • Makefiles . Templates III • Design and Implementation (C++ versus Java versus C#) • “Dynamic” Static Algorithm Selection • Binders Th. Gschwind. Fortgeschrittene Programmierung in C++. 2 Separate Compilation . Why? • Having only one source file is unrealistic • Break the code up into its logical structure • Reduction of compile time - Only changed parts need to be recompiled . How? • Use multiple source files • Need to know what information about functions and variables “used” from other files Th. Gschwind. Fortgeschrittene Programmierung in C++. 3 Separate Compilation in Java . Each Java file is compiled into a class file . If a Java class invokes a method of another class, the compiler consults that other class file to • Determine whether the class provides the requested method • Determine whether a class file implements a given interface • etc. • Hence, the .class file contains the entire interface . That’s why in Java, the compiler needs the class path . Finally, all class files are loaded by the Java Virtual Machine (and “linked”) . Java source code can be relatively well reconstructed from .class file (see Java Decompiler: jd, jad) Th. Gschwind. Fortgeschrittene Programmierung in C++. 4 Some Java Trivia . Let us write Hello World in Java . In order to simplify the reconfiguration (e.g., translation) • Put all the constants into one Java file • Put the complex application code into another public class Const { public static final String msg="Hello World!"; } public class Cool { public static void main(String[] args) { System.out.println(Const.msg); } } Th.
    [Show full text]
  • P2356R0 Date 2021-04-09 Reply-To Matus Chochlik [email protected] Audience SG7 Overview Details
    Overview Details Implementing Factory builder on top of P2320 Document Number P2356R0 Date 2021-04-09 Reply-to Matus Chochlik [email protected] Audience SG7 Overview Details The goal (Semi-)automate the implementation of the Factory design pattern Overview Details What is meant by \Factory" here? • Class that constructs instances of a \Product" type. • From some external representation: • XML, • JSON, • YAML, • a GUI, • a scripting language, • a relational database, • ... Overview Details Factory builder • Framework combining the following parts • Meta-data • obtained from reflection. • Traits • units of code that handle various stages of construction, • specific to a particular external representation, • provided by user. Overview Details Factory builder • Used meta-data • type name strings, • list of meta-objects reflecting constructors, • list of meta-objects reflecting constructor parameters, • parameter type, • parameter name, • ... Overview Details Factory builder • Units handling the stages of construction • selecting the \best" constructor, • invoking the selected constructor, • conversion of parameter values from the external representation, • may recursively use factories for composite parameter types. Overview Details Used reflection features • ^T • [: :]1 • meta::name_of • meta::type_of • meta::members_of • meta::is_constructor • meta::is_default_constructor • meta::is_move_constructor • meta::is_copy_constructor • meta::parameters_of • size(Range) • range iterators 1to get back the reflected type Overview Details Reflection review • The good2 • How extensive and powerful the API is • The bad • Didn't find much3 • The ugly • Some of the syntax4 2great actually! 3some details follow 4but then this is a matter of personal preference Overview Details What is missing • The ability to easily unpack meta-objects from a range into a template, without un-reflecting them. • I used the following workaround + make_index_sequence: template <typename Iterator > consteval auto advance(Iterator it, size_t n) { while (n-- > 0) { ++ it; } return it; } • Details follow.
    [Show full text]
  • Metaclasses: Generative C++
    Metaclasses: Generative C++ Document Number: P0707 R3 Date: 2018-02-11 Reply-to: Herb Sutter ([email protected]) Audience: SG7, EWG Contents 1 Overview .............................................................................................................................................................2 2 Language: Metaclasses .......................................................................................................................................7 3 Library: Example metaclasses .......................................................................................................................... 18 4 Applying metaclasses: Qt moc and C++/WinRT .............................................................................................. 35 5 Alternatives for sourcedefinition transform syntax .................................................................................... 41 6 Alternatives for applying the transform .......................................................................................................... 43 7 FAQs ................................................................................................................................................................. 46 8 Revision history ............................................................................................................................................... 51 Major changes in R3: Switched to function-style declaration syntax per SG7 direction in Albuquerque (old: $class M new: constexpr void M(meta::type target,
    [Show full text]
  • What I Wish I Knew When Learning Haskell
    What I Wish I Knew When Learning Haskell Stephen Diehl 2 Version This is the fifth major draft of this document since 2009. All versions of this text are freely available onmywebsite: 1. HTML Version ­ http://dev.stephendiehl.com/hask/index.html 2. PDF Version ­ http://dev.stephendiehl.com/hask/tutorial.pdf 3. EPUB Version ­ http://dev.stephendiehl.com/hask/tutorial.epub 4. Kindle Version ­ http://dev.stephendiehl.com/hask/tutorial.mobi Pull requests are always accepted for fixes and additional content. The only way this document will stayupto date and accurate through the kindness of readers like you and community patches and pull requests on Github. https://github.com/sdiehl/wiwinwlh Publish Date: March 3, 2020 Git Commit: 77482103ff953a8f189a050c4271919846a56612 Author This text is authored by Stephen Diehl. 1. Web: www.stephendiehl.com 2. Twitter: https://twitter.com/smdiehl 3. Github: https://github.com/sdiehl Special thanks to Erik Aker for copyediting assistance. Copyright © 2009­2020 Stephen Diehl This code included in the text is dedicated to the public domain. You can copy, modify, distribute and perform thecode, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. You may distribute this text in its full form freely, but may not reauthor or sublicense this work. Any reproductions of major portions of the text must include attribution. The software is provided ”as is”, without warranty of any kind, express or implied, including But not limitedtothe warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and noninfringement. In no event shall the authorsor copyright holders be liable for any claim, damages or other liability, whether in an action of contract, tort or otherwise, Arising from, out of or in connection with the software or the use or other dealings in the software.
    [Show full text]
  • Generic Programming
    Generic Programming July 21, 1998 A Dagstuhl Seminar on the topic of Generic Programming was held April 27– May 1, 1998, with forty seven participants from ten countries. During the meeting there were thirty seven lectures, a panel session, and several problem sessions. The outcomes of the meeting include • A collection of abstracts of the lectures, made publicly available via this booklet and a web site at http://www-ca.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/dagstuhl/gpdag.html. • Plans for a proceedings volume of papers submitted after the seminar that present (possibly extended) discussions of the topics covered in the lectures, problem sessions, and the panel session. • A list of generic programming projects and open problems, which will be maintained publicly on the World Wide Web at http://www-ca.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/people/musser/gp/pop/index.html http://www.cs.rpi.edu/˜musser/gp/pop/index.html. 1 Contents 1 Motivation 3 2 Standards Panel 4 3 Lectures 4 3.1 Foundations and Methodology Comparisons ........ 4 Fundamentals of Generic Programming.................. 4 Jim Dehnert and Alex Stepanov Automatic Program Specialization by Partial Evaluation........ 4 Robert Gl¨uck Evaluating Generic Programming in Practice............... 6 Mehdi Jazayeri Polytypic Programming........................... 6 Johan Jeuring Recasting Algorithms As Objects: AnAlternativetoIterators . 7 Murali Sitaraman Using Genericity to Improve OO Designs................. 8 Karsten Weihe Inheritance, Genericity, and Class Hierarchies.............. 8 Wolf Zimmermann 3.2 Programming Methodology ................... 9 Hierarchical Iterators and Algorithms................... 9 Matt Austern Generic Programming in C++: Matrix Case Study........... 9 Krzysztof Czarnecki Generative Programming: Beyond Generic Programming........ 10 Ulrich Eisenecker Generic Programming Using Adaptive and Aspect-Oriented Programming .
    [Show full text]
  • Idris: a Functional Programming Language with Dependent Types
    Programming Languages and Compiler Construction Department of Computer Science Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel Seminar Paper Idris: A Functional Programming Language with Dependent Types Author: B.Sc. Finn Teegen Date: 20th February 2015 Advised by: M.Sc. Sandra Dylus Contents 1 Introduction1 2 Fundamentals2 2.1 Universes....................................2 2.2 Type Families..................................2 2.3 Dependent Types................................3 2.4 Curry-Howard Correspondence........................4 3 Language Overview5 3.1 Simple Types and Functions..........................5 3.2 Dependent Types and Functions.......................6 3.3 Implicit Arguments...............................7 3.4 Views......................................8 3.5 Lazy Evaluation................................8 3.6 Syntax Extensions...............................9 4 Theorem Proving 10 4.1 Propositions as Types and Terms as Proofs................. 10 4.2 Encoding Intuitionistic First-Order Logic................... 12 4.3 Totality Checking................................ 14 5 Conclusion 15 ii 1 Introduction In conventional Hindley-Milner based programming languages, such as Haskell1, there is typically a clear separation between values and types. In dependently typed languages, however, this distinction is less clear or rather non-existent. In fact, types can depend on arbitrary values. Thus, they become first-class citizens and are computable like any other value. With types being allowed to contain values, they gain the possibility to describe prop- erties of their own elements. The standard example for dependent types is the type of lists of a given length - commonly referred to as vectors - where the length is part of the type itself. When starting to encode properties of values as types, the elements of such types can be seen as proofs that the stated property is true.
    [Show full text]
  • RICH: Automatically Protecting Against Integer-Based Vulnerabilities
    RICH: Automatically Protecting Against Integer-Based Vulnerabilities David Brumley, Tzi-cker Chiueh, Robert Johnson [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Huijia Lin, Dawn Song [email protected], [email protected] Abstract against integer-based attacks. Integer bugs appear because programmers do not antici- We present the design and implementation of RICH pate the semantics of C operations. The C99 standard [16] (Run-time Integer CHecking), a tool for efficiently detecting defines about a dozen rules governinghow integer types can integer-based attacks against C programs at run time. C be cast or promoted. The standard allows several common integer bugs, a popular avenue of attack and frequent pro- cases, such as many types of down-casting, to be compiler- gramming error [1–15], occur when a variable value goes implementation specific. In addition, the written rules are out of the range of the machine word used to materialize it, not accompanied by an unambiguous set of formal rules, e.g. when assigning a large 32-bit int to a 16-bit short. making it difficult for a programmer to verify that he un- We show that safe and unsafe integer operations in C can derstands C99 correctly. Integer bugs are not exclusive to be captured by well-known sub-typing theory. The RICH C. Similar languages such as C++, and even type-safe lan- compiler extension compiles C programs to object code that guages such as Java and OCaml, do not raise exceptions on monitors its own execution to detect integer-based attacks.
    [Show full text]
  • Cpt S 122 – Data Structures Custom Templatized Data Structures In
    Cpt S 122 – Data Structures Custom Templatized Data Structures in C++ Nirmalya Roy School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Washington State University Topics Introduction Self Referential Classes Dynamic Memory Allocation and Data Structures Linked List insert, delete, isEmpty, printList Stacks push, pop Queues enqueue, dequeue Trees insertNode, inOrder, preOrder, postOrder Introduction Fixed-size data structures such as one-dimensional arrays and two- dimensional arrays. Dynamic data structures that grow and shrink during execution. Linked lists are collections of data items logically “lined up in a row” insertions and removals are made anywhere in a linked list. Stacks are important in compilers and operating systems: Insertions and removals are made only at one end of a stack—its top. Queues represent waiting lines; insertions are made at the back (also referred to as the tail) of a queue removals are made from the front (also referred to as the head) of a queue. Binary trees facilitate high-speed searching and sorting of data, efficient elimination of duplicate data items, representation of file-system directories compilation of expressions into machine language. Introduction (cont.) Classes, class templates, inheritance and composition is used to create and package these data structures for reusability and maintainability. Standard Template Library (STL) The STL is a major portion of the C++ Standard Library. The STL provides containers, iterators for traversing those containers algorithms for processing the containers’ elements. The STL packages data structures into templatized classes. The STL code is carefully written to be portable, efficient and extensible. Self-Referential Classes A self-referential class contains a pointer member that points to a class object of the same class type.
    [Show full text]
  • ETSI TS 102 222 V7.0.0 (2006-08) Technical Specification
    ETSI TS 102 222 V7.0.0 (2006-08) Technical Specification Integrated Circuit Cards (ICC); Administrative commands for telecommunications applications (Release 7) Release 7 2 ETSI TS 102 222 V7.0.0 (2006-08) Reference RTS/SCP-T00368 Keywords GSM, smart card, UMTS ETSI 650 Route des Lucioles F-06921 Sophia Antipolis Cedex - FRANCE Tel.: +33 4 92 94 42 00 Fax: +33 4 93 65 47 16 Siret N° 348 623 562 00017 - NAF 742 C Association à but non lucratif enregistrée à la Sous-Préfecture de Grasse (06) N° 7803/88 Important notice Individual copies of the present document can be downloaded from: http://www.etsi.org The present document may be made available in more than one electronic version or in print. In any case of existing or perceived difference in contents between such versions, the reference version is the Portable Document Format (PDF). In case of dispute, the reference shall be the printing on ETSI printers of the PDF version kept on a specific network drive within ETSI Secretariat. Users of the present document should be aware that the document may be subject to revision or change of status. Information on the current status of this and other ETSI documents is available at http://portal.etsi.org/tb/status/status.asp If you find errors in the present document, please send your comment to one of the following services: http://portal.etsi.org/chaircor/ETSI_support.asp Copyright Notification No part may be reproduced except as authorized by written permission. The copyright and the foregoing restriction extend to reproduction in all media.
    [Show full text]
  • 13 Templates-Generics.Pdf
    CS 242 2012 Generic programming in OO Languages Reading Text: Sections 9.4.1 and 9.4.3 J Koskinen, Metaprogramming in C++, Sections 2 – 5 Gilad Bracha, Generics in the Java Programming Language Questions • If subtyping and inheritance are so great, why do we need type parameterization in object- oriented languages? • The great polymorphism debate – Subtype polymorphism • Apply f(Object x) to any y : C <: Object – Parametric polymorphism • Apply generic <T> f(T x) to any y : C Do these serve similar or different purposes? Outline • C++ Templates – Polymorphism vs Overloading – C++ Template specialization – Example: Standard Template Library (STL) – C++ Template metaprogramming • Java Generics – Subtyping versus generics – Static type checking for generics – Implementation of Java generics Polymorphism vs Overloading • Parametric polymorphism – Single algorithm may be given many types – Type variable may be replaced by any type – f :: tt => f :: IntInt, f :: BoolBool, ... • Overloading – A single symbol may refer to more than one algorithm – Each algorithm may have different type – Choice of algorithm determined by type context – Types of symbol may be arbitrarily different – + has types int*intint, real*realreal, ... Polymorphism: Haskell vs C++ • Haskell polymorphic function – Declarations (generally) require no type information – Type inference uses type variables – Type inference substitutes for variables as needed to instantiate polymorphic code • C++ function template – Programmer declares argument, result types of fctns – Programmers
    [Show full text]